On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:36:19 PM Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > On 11/18/2014 01:17 PM, Lindsay Mathieson wrote: > > On 18 November 2014 17:40, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > However given the files are tens of GB in size, won't it thrash my > > network? > > Yes you are right. I wonder why thrashing of the network is never > reported till now. Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not :) But from what I've observed, sync operations seem to self throttle, I've not seen them use more than 50% of bandwidth, and given most setups have a dedicated network for the servers maybe they just don't notice if it takes a while? > I still need to think about how best to solve this problem. Setup a array of queues for self healing, sorted by size maybe? > > Let me tell you a bit more about this issue: > there are two processes which heal the VM images: > 1) self-heal-daemon. 2) Mount process. > Self-heal daemon heals one VM image at a time. But mount process > triggers self-heals for all the opened files(VM image is nothing but an > opened file from filesystem's perspective) when a brick goes down and > comes backup. Thanks, interesting to know. > So we need to come up with a scheme to throttle self-heals > on the mount point to prevent this issue. I will update you as soon as I > come up with a fix. This should not be hard to do. Need some time to > choose the best approach. Thanks a lot for bringing up this issue. Thanks you for looking at it! Cheers, -- Lindsay
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
